User:Useight/RFA Subjects/RFA length

Time between nomination and adminship (Archive 2)

Concern... no lag time?

I'm a bit concerned how fast Pakaran was turned into sysop -- it was only 48 hours between nomination and adminship. Now granted, he had been discussed before, there was a large amount of support and he's a good contributor. However, the process seemed quite fast, considering something like Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion has a 5 day "lag time" and adminship used to be a much more drawn out process. Has something changed? Fuzheado 18:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seven day delay proposed

I don't know that we've ever had a policy of a certain amount of time on the page before granting adminship, but I think a required delay of say 7 days might be a good idea, just to give time in case someone has something relevent to say about a nominee that others voting here might not be aware of. -- Infrogmation 18:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. A certain delay would make sure everyone who wants to weigh in is heard from. Seven days would seem about right to me. -- Viajero 23:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK. I usually leave it for a bit longer, but since I was doing 6 at once I got a bit careless. -- Tim Starling 01:49, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Most of the people I nominated waited for like over 2 weeks. --Menchi 02:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tim, could you be careless just one more time and move me :-)? (I'm just kidding...) ugen64 20:43, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

After too fast, we have too slow (Archive 4)

Quite a few users have been here too long. They need to be made sysops. Most have unanimous support and have been here for at least a week, (i think) Green Mountain 23:00, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A week is not long enough. --mav 23:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have seen users become sysops after being listed for less than 2 days. Green Mountain 19:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tim explains

Please check the discussion above. I was chastised for doing it after 2 days, now I do it after a week. Also, I don't have time to do it every day, so some people may have to wait more than a week. -- Tim Starling 01:57, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia Nomination (Archive 16)

I'm puzzled. My nomination for admin has been at the 80% level for two days on a large vote (32 out of 40 in support). Even among the bureaucrats, 4 of 5 voting support my nomination, yet it has languished for 15 days. Isn't this a rather unusual circumstance on Wikipedia? Cecropia 07:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If Cecropia hadn't said it, I would have. Seriously, this nomination has languished for too long, and I don't think it's fair to him when he has such high support. →Raul654 07:42, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not planning on any steady presence in this forum; but since this page still is on my watchlist, I noticed the question above and wonder: Has there been introduced any 80% treshold? If so, 80% of what? /Tuomas 09:42, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a rather long discussion about what constitutes "consensus" in admin promotion (and elsewhere) and how much discretion bureaucrats are supposed to use in promotion—i.e., whether they follow a strict number; evaluate the comments, etc. See "Polls" and "Bureaucrat Judgement" above Cecropia 14:03, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just before the original deadline for votes, Cecropia edited the deadline [with this edit]. Since it was done without an explanation on this page (although it seemed to be in response to what looked to me like an anti-Cecropia campaign by a certain user), and as I've never seen that before and it didn't give a new deadline, I think that no one has felt empowered to change that... so I believe that's why it's languishing... -- BCorr|Брайен 19:49, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed a misunderstanding in BCorr's posting—I didn't change the end time before the end time, I changed it more than a day and a half after the end date, when the nomination just sat and the voting appeared to have stopped after Angela (as bureaucrat) said she thought the vote should be extended. Cecropia 15:29, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying -- it was a bit hard to follow. I stand corrected. -- BCorr|Брайен 02:56, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I thought of that. I made that edit because I believed that keeping it the way it was (with the expired deadline) would suggest that people couldn't vote any more, and it seemed people were looking for more votes—and noone proposed a new ending date. Now we're in the 16th day; I'm sure bureaucrats have noticed because they have to step over my still-warm body ;-) to promote others. Cecropia 20:02, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anybody feel empowered enough to suggest a new end date? I don't think Cecropia should do it since he's the subject, nor do I want to do it myself since I've been somewhat campaigning for him. Isomorphic 01:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Easy enough. I didn't vote either way (nothing personal -- I'm just not familiar enough with you), so I think it's OK -- I've set it for a day from now. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:48, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

With 8 votes opposing I don't think there's any way this can reach consensus. anthony (see warning) 02:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I made the decision about Fennec, I don't want to be the one deciding on this too, so I left it for the other bureaucrats. I'm quite surprised none of them have done anything. Has anyone contacted any of them? Angela. 19:55, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

• (Being a bureaucract) - I did not interpret the results as a consensus, so I did not take action to make Cecropia an admin. However, I also did not want to remove the vote from the page and say that there was too much opposition (especially because I had voted in opposition). So I have done nothing either way. I am sure this has added to the vote tallies lingering on the page. Kingturtle 06:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. Although I voted against Cecrophia's adminship, if I saw a clear consensus, I would have taken action to make Cecropia an admin.
  • The tally has been hovering around 75% for quite some time, which is why the poll hasn't closed. Never quite enough to call it consensus, and too close to it for anyone to want to end the vote and remove. I wonder what will happen when the current time expires and the tally is still ~75%? Isomorphic 06:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I guess bureaucrats will do as they are supposed to do: not to take a decission which needs their oppinion. So, in this case, if no bureaucrat has a clear conscience, they -in my oppinion- ought to state it, and inact. Pfortuny 07:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I have not promoted Cecropia because there is clearly no consensus to do so. Tuf-Kat 07:34, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • This seems like a very strange thing. For one thing, my count has been at or over 80% twice recently, including for two days, but negative votes keep dribbling in. I don't know some of the personalities here very well, but the votes include Wik, who seems is the subject of community actions and widely disliked--why did he vote against me? Now Nico--who on his User Page says "I'm not responding to personal attacks any more." I seem to have become a magnet for people with some kind of chip on their shoulders. The recent polls indicate that only one person thought MORE than 80% is a consensus and quite a few 75% or even less.

My original negative vote is from a person who openly dislikes me politically, and seems angered that I didn't respond quickly enought to his ongoing desire to debate. I haven't said so until now but he has been virtually campaigning against me, actually soliciting people on my nomination and even asking two why they voted in my favor. So do we have a situation where a dedicated, politically motivated opponent can kill off the nomination of an admin?

This consensus thing is mystifying. No one seems prepared to say what it is; several bureaucrats have said it's a number (which I've reached--it's hard to maintain when any 1 "No" kills 4 "Yes" votss) and they can't evaluate the quality of people's comments. So we have a perfect contradiction. No one feels empowered to determine what a consensus is, but they're sure I haven't reached it.

Forgive me or not for raving on, but I believe in this project and I've been working hard at and I feel that, in my case at least, this has become an abusive process. Cecropia 11:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not against you (but I cannot be for you for whatever reason). I also did not want to say that you should not be promoted (although now reading my above commentary, I realise it may give a different impression). But if bureaucrats are not comfortable, then I think their proper behaviour is not to act. We cannot force consensus, it is something everybody agrees with, isn't it? On my side, I am sorry that your nomination has ended up in this, but it is not lack of trust, it is the way of democracy and administration in any organization. Pfortuny 15:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will not vote. I feel to have been too little involved. And my last (User:Graculus) involvement here don't make me inclined to participate in decissions (well, maybe I shouldn't debate then!) on how Wikipedia is run. However, I can't help to note that wikipedia is evolving, and that the (wiki-) spirit is changing. My earlier opposition against granting what practically is a sign of honor (combined with minor extra power and some extra wikipedia-functionality) to people too fresh, too interested in the promotion, and too prone to see things only in their own perspective makes me cautious. Not against User:Cecropia personally (or his persona here), but against users with these traits. I don't know how it is for you, folks, but in my head, the warningbells start when reading Cecropia's posting above. /Tuomas 15:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion, to both Cecropia and the community at large, from someone who has not voted on the nomination. Clear the decks, wait a week or so, and start over. Based on the statements above, and the bureaucrats who have passed over this nomination to create other admins (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log), at least 4 bureaucrats are not prepared to say this nomination has a consensus. It may be close to a consensus, but it doesn't seem to clear the bar, wherever the bar may be.

Cecropia, you have a lot of supporters, and I'm sure one of them would be happy to renominate you later. For various reasons, there is a sizable bloc opposing the nomination as well. Personally, I believe that in finding consensus, it is often more important to avoid overriding objections than it is to act based on the demands of a large majority. I think that if you would gracefully accept that this nomination has been unsuccessful, and wait for another, future opposition might be less vehement, and you could earn respect and even support from those who have been observing. --Michael Snow 18:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Can the person in question be trusted to use the mighty "delete" and "block" buttons? Well, you only have to get 70% on your written driver's test to be licensed for a machine that kills over 40,000 people a year (in the USA). This is not life or death: it's a project to create an encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 19:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you are a bureaucrat and feel there is no need to fuss about it, you might as well promote him, might you not? That is what I said above... Pfortuny 19:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perceived unanimity (Archive 17)

If someone is getting twenty or thirty "support" comments, and no oppose or "other" comments, do we still need to wait a full 7 days? I'm itching to press the button for Michael Snow! --Uncle Ed 12:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say: but what if you promote him too soon and we find out he's really Osama bin Laden ... or ... JOHN ASHCROFT?!?!?! (OK, OK, so do it already) -- Cecropia 13:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since 7 days is the established minimum period for votes, I believe we should stick to it in all cases. Some people may be relying on that fact, and only check out the activity on RfA once a week or so. It's kind of Ed to be so eager on my behalf, but I ask for a little patience. Whether I become an admin today, tomorrow, next month, or never at all is not such a big deal, but it would be a big deal to me if I felt the process hadn't been followed properly - I'd feel like I should be de-sysoped and go through the process again. (As to my identity, I assert that this is my real name, but you may want more proof than that.) --Michael Snow 20:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ending times (Archive 26)

I would like to discuss the nature of end times for voting.

In general, bureaucrats (including me) have taken some liberty with the end times, often closing the matter some hours or more early, especially when the consensus is clear. Speaking for myself, I do this when I know I will be away from Wikipedia when the nomination end time is reached, usually as a courtesy to the nominee so that they need not wait an excessive time for promotion. I expect that others' reasoning is similar.

I wonder whether this remains wise. Since there are now a fair number of active bureaucrats, it seems to me that it may be best to wait until the end time for the nomination has actually passed before promoting or removing a nomination. Given the number of bureaucrats who followe RFA, the likelihood that a new admin will have to wait more than a day or two for promotion seems low.

User:Biekko recently brought this up WRT their own nomination at User talk:Cecropia and I thought it wise to raise a discussion of the general case.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a certain level of flexibility when consensus is clear. If it isn't, then leaving the time to the close is probably safer. Nevertheless, with adminship being "no big deal", I wouldn't be too bothered by pre-empting an obvious promotion. However, I think this should be left to the bureaucrat's discretion, not enshrined in policy. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 15:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I would prefer to see an RfA closed after 7 full days of voting. However, in cases where the consensus is clear (either to reject or promote), I don't see a problem with closing the RfA on the seventh day (ie. between 144 and 168 hours have passed). In the specific case of User:Biekko's RfA, he had around 70% support (depending on how you count neutral votes). Although it's extremely unlikely he'd achieve a consensus to promote, it probably would have been best to leave the RfA until the full seven days had passed. Carbonite | Talk 15:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UC, Biekko and all: My bad. I did not intend to end this nomination early. In fact, I don't believe I have ended a non-promoting candidacy early any time recently, leaving it up to give the candidate any chance possible, even if it's remote. The only time I promote early is if I know I'm going to be away for a while (like sleep--I do, occasionally) and the nomination is obviously going to succeed comfortably. If one of our editors has too much free time check me out and see if I'm mistaken.

Anyway, UC obviously did the right thing by restoring the nomination; I would have done the same if I had seen Biekko's query on my talk earlier. We can continue this discussion if you like, but my policy (sans lack of sleep and coffee) is as above. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Personally it seems like Biekko's nomination is going to become very close, it's now 25/8, which gives it around 76% support - User:Neutrality was promoted (third time) at 61/16/3, which translates to 76.25%. I know I sound like lasson, but I am a statistician by training... --JuntungWu 03:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought that "neutral" votes should be counted like ties, giving .5 votes to "support" and .5 votes to "oppose". In Biekko's RfA there are two neutral votes, so it would be 26/9, which is 74.3% support. In this case, virtually every non-supporting vote (including mine) is because of relatively little interaction with the English Wikipedia community. He'll be a shoo-in in a month (unless he's promoted this time). Carbonite | Talk 21:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't count "neutrals" 50/50 because that makes them effective "oppose" votes, since consensus is 75/25 to 80/20. But to reiterate a point I've made many times before, when adminship turned to vote counting, a lot of editors were disturbed, and I see their point, though I'm not very partisan on the issue. So trying to endlessly parse the numbers is non-responsive. When the nomination is in that gray area, Bureaucrats have to look at the total candidacy and make a decision. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for extending admin vote time (Archive 27)

Given that Wikipedia was down for a day, shouldn't the votes be extended by a day? Not that I much care for myself — I've already broken the record :P — but for others they might like that. - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)

It wasn't down for a day. As best I can tell, it was down for 22 hours. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Close enough. Most of which was during non-job, non-sleeping time. Shem^(talk) 28 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)

I extended all candidacies by one day, except TBSDY, who is an admin (again) and Seth Ilys' "experimental" "confirmation." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 08:53 (UTC)

Seven days (Archive 42)

The instructions say that "Nominations remain for seven days" but don't say seven days from when. It appears that some people set the ending time as soon the nomination is created, others start from when the nominee accepts and others seem to be different from either of those. For both clarity and fairness, I would suggest that the sentence be revised to read "Nominations remain for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page". That time can easily be checked in the page history. -- DS1953 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Be bold, DS1953, I've got your back. Tomer^talk 23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. That was enough discussion... Really, if anyone wants to change it back or has other thoughts, be my guest. -- DS1953 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, my rationale was that the wider community isn't going to know about them until they're listed here, and they're not supposed to be listed here until the nominee accepts the nomination, so... 7 days from when they're posted here seems the most logical approach.  :-) Tomer^talk 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. FreplySpang (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Improper dating/timing of RfAs (Archive 43)

Recently, we had a dust up about Hamster Sandwich's RfA being prematurely closed due to clerical error in properly dating/timing his RfA. Well, we've had another RfA that was improperly dated/timed and was closed two days early. This one is considerably less problematic as it closed at 27-0-0. Observe:

• On 7 December User:Sebastiankessel created the RfA. ([1]).
• On 8 December User:Pablo-flores accepted, answering questions as well [2].
• On 9 December User:Sebastiankessel inaccurately added the RfA to Rschen7754's RfA, which had the effect of adding Pablo's RfA to WP:RFA, however improperly. [3].
• Within the hour, I noticed this had happened and corrected it, and properly posted it to WP:RFA. I further corrected the end time and date to reflect when the RfA was posted to WP:RFA. [4]. However, I made an error in that I left the end day as "Wednesday", though the date and time were correct for 16 December, not 14 December as previously entered by User:Sebastiankessel.
• On 13 December, User:Sebastiankessel noticed this and changed the date back to December 14th, stating in the edit summary that he did not know how it got there like that [5].
• On 14 December, bureaucrat Cecropria closed the RfA, promoting Pablo.

Because of the Hamster Sandwich situation, I've been watching RfAs more closely now to make sure that their end dates and times are correct. My general rule of thumb for modifying them has been that if it is off by more than an hour from when it was actually posted to WP:RFA, then I've been modifying the end date/time to reflect when it was actually posted. I would encourage other people to do the same, and to bureaucrats please pay close attention to when an RfA was posted to WP:RFA to determine the proper close time so we can avoid future problems in this area. Thank you. --Durin 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I came back from my Wikinap to find a considerable number of past-due nominations (successful and not) and did some cleanup, including a few promotions a couple of hours early, which is well established as bureaucrat judgment for successful nominations. I routinely check end times vs. nomination times. Now, I don't really understand the situation with Pablo-flores that you outlined above. It seems to me the nomination was made on the 7th, closed on the 14th. Something happened in between which is not obvious up front, but how was a bureaucrat supposed to know this? And in this case, no harm done anyway.
• But speaking as a bureaucrat, I have two requests to all: (1) Please make an effort to put and keep nominations in chronological order, newest (even by a matter of minutes) above older ones. In making the last dozen or so promotions/non-promos, a lot were out of order, increasing the chances of promotions not being made in a timely manner. When there are two-dozen-odd noms at the same time, I think you can understand the inefficiency of having to scroll through and check each in chronological order every time there a 'crat looks at the list. Also remember that you don't need a 'crat or even an admin to reorder a mistake if one spots it and knows what he/she is doing. (2) Please please if you see an anomoly that messes up a nomination, please drop a note to one or two or three of the bureaucrats who are active at any given time. An ounce of prevention, etc. etc. Cheers, Cecropia 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• The nomination was made on the 7th, but was not actually posted to WP:RFA until the 9th. Thus, the end date of the 14th was incorrect; it should have been the 16th. This was corrected by me, then later uncorrected. I'm not asserting fault on your part Cecropia; just noting this situation and hope we don't have more repeats. I've reviewed the end times/dates for all current RfAs and their squence on WP:RFA. For now, everything is correct. --Durin 16:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for the watchdogging, Durin. On behalf of the heartless bureaucracy, it is appreciated. -- Cecropia 16:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Arf! Arf! You guys aren't heartless by the way, just buried in red tape :) --Durin 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that has made me decide to start living on UTC time. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Durin...and others who are following this discussion still... In the future, perhaps it would be best to bring this sort of issue to the fore on the project page itself (on the individual RFA's page, as obnoxious as that might seem, sometimes that's what it takes to get attention...just don't use flashing text!)... I don't actually see anything improper in this, since the way I read "the rules", there's no requirement that RfA's actually have to be posted to this page...just that they can't be posted until the nominee has accepted. I would say that your note about the 7th vs 9th is valid most especially if the nominee feels they're being shortchanged by an "early" close date. I realize my unopposed proposed solution to the "close dating" problem in response to the HS thing and the ensuing discussion, was that the absolute 7-day deadline should be determined by when the nomination was listed on WP:RFA, but the fact of the matter is that, while my proposal didn't cause any waves, it also failed to garner thunderclaps of accolades. So. I'm going to make a quasi-policy proposal here and now: when an RfA nomination is accepted, the _nominator_ (I had to list my own) is required to list it on WP:RFA. When that happens, someone or someones, have the duty of determining whether or not the nomination has been properly accepted (I'm assuming someone is already doing this, given that it's a requirement for listing!), and calculating the closing date, at that time. That way, any discussion about the closing date, or any disagreement, can be handled beforehand rather than afterwards. The HamSan thing is old news...I chalk it up to human error. The above-referenced case, however, is something that could have been resolved long before the closing time, if even just by leaving a note "to the closing bureaucrat: there's a dispute about the closing time of this RfA". Comentario? Tomer^talk 09:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Extending an RfA duration? (Archive 62)

I didn't see anything in the rules, but is there a precedent for extending the length of an RfA? I'm not requesting anything at the moment, just wondering. --mboverload@ 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of any official policy or guideline, but there has been a case where the length has been extended slightly. It was hard for the bureaucrats to determine consensus, and so they wanted to extend the RfA to see if consensus could be more easily determined. See the case here. DarthVader 07:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If an RfA is rapidly changing, for example many users are changing to Oppose due to a civility related issue brought up then I think it is extended to see how many do go to oppose. Because if someone brought up a major problem regarding the user on the last hour of the RfA, users wouldn't get a chance to change to oppose.--Andeh 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If at the would-be closing time there is clear indication that the consensus-building process is very much underway (if some relevant piece of information has just been brought up, for instance), a Bureaucrat may extend the RfA so as to avoid cutting short the relevant process. The particular direction in which the RfA may be going (succeed or fail) is not decisive in this, but rather whether or not there is a relevant development that will determine wheather or not the community wants the candidate to be promoted that would be abruptly interrupted if the RfA were to be closed at the time originally designated. We only do that in special situations though, and notably when the outcome of a RfA might depend remarkably on the outcome of the developing situation. Anyone is welcome to call our attention to a situation where an extension could be necessary, but as a rule we do not extend RfAs on request. Redux 12:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

At one time, we experimented with extending close calls by a day to see if a clear consensus was reached, but this almost never produced a clear consensus. Warofdreams talk 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it Redux. --mboverload@ 18:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ending or due to end? (Archive 71)

Should the timing at the top of RfAs say ending or due to end? Thing is, many RfAs finish early, and so the statement isn't true. Any comments? --Alex (Talk) 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever it is, it should be consistent. I changed one such entry to "Ending" because a bot was not getting the time correct. --Durin 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I like "due to end" simply because RFAs can close early, (or less commonly, late). - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question (Archive 75)

In light of the controversy on the extension, would anyone mind if the RFA template was changed to say "ending no sooner than XX:XX"? Ral315 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think that's too good, considering pileons nowadays... – Chacor 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to (essentially) say "ending on XX:XX unless a bureaucrat extends the deadline", which is what no sooner would really be about. Virtually any scheduled date in wikipedia is changable by someone; it's not really necessary to state anything about unusual exceptions. Plus no sooner than implies it's not unusual to extend the deadline, when it fact it is unusual. John Broughton | Talk 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That wording also ignores early closings of an RfA, which is what I think Chacor means by pileons. Though early closings only apply to negative pileons, I think. Carcharoth 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Following several discussions of this nature over the last few months, and checking with the BotOps, I've changed the template to say "Scheduled to end". This seems to be a consensus way around the inaccuracy of the previous wording. -- nae'blis 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)